Water, Water Everywhere

   Much is in the news these days about alien visitors, UAP's (aka UFO's), extraterrestrials, etc.  I think one of the most overlooked evidence of such visitors comes from the Genesis account of creation in the Old Testament Bible.

   When that account is re-visited with a little more knowledge about our solar system, something amazing happens.

   The earth, from its origin, which some say came about from the collapse of our sun when it was a red giant, has always been the water planet.  The water that is here now was here then.  At that time the water would have blanketed the molten earth with a layer of clouds that was thousands of miles thick.  The Genesis account says "...darkness was upon the face of the deep"  No light would have penetrated the clouds.  The earth is not the only body in our solar system like this:  Venus is surrounded by such a layer of clouds.  One of Jupiter's moons, Ganymede, is also covered with water.

   Fast forward now a few million years to the next event from the Genesis account.  As the earth cooled, the layers of clouds thinned so that light now reached the earth's surface.  Since the earth was already rotating on its axis, the phrase "...and God divided the light from the darkness" is consistent.  Keep in mind, no one was around yet to observe any of this.

   Fast forward another few million years.  The earth has now cooled sufficiently for water to condense on the surface.  The Genesis account says:  "...and God made the firmament (sky) which divided the waters which were above from the waters that were below."  It goes on to say:...let the waters be gathered together into one place and let the dry land appear."  

   At this point, there would have been very little or no oxygen in the atmosphere.  The extensive vulcanism would have produced a sulfuric acid atmosphere similar to what we see now on Venus.  The cloud cover would have still blanketed the earth.

   Fast forward again to a critical event that changed the chemistry of the atmosphere and made life on earth possible.  Plants were introduced into the earth's history.  One could argue over where they came from, but the geologic record clearly shows that plants were the first living creatures.  These plants contained a complex chemical, called chlorophyl, which enabled the organism to feed off from the toxic atmosphere and release oxygen in the process.  The process of photosynthesis is one of the most complex processes we know about.  There are still things about it that we do not understand.  What is inescapable is the conclusion that this sophisticated process is a technology and did not suddenly appear intact through some gradual "evolutionary" process.  The Genesis account goes on to say:..."let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed after his kind and the the tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself after his kind."  For millions of years plants populated the earth, oxygenating the atmosphere and producing a climate that would eventually support the diversity of living things we now see.

   As the water vapor in the atmosphere continued to condense upon a cooling earth, the sky became clear enough to see the sun, moon and stars.  There was no one to observe these events, but there can be no doubt that it would have happened this way.

   Since this scenario follows closely what we now think about the history of earth, it raises the question about how Moses could have ever imagined this.  Although a lot of myths have grown up around this account, it remains unique among the sacred writings of all faiths.  Moses, during his 40 day stay on Mount Horeb, must have been talking to someone who knew all about the earth's history and asked Moses to transcribe it.  Is this direct evidence of a "close encounter of the third kind?"

   If you are a clear-eyed seeker of wisdom and truth, you must seriously ponder this mystery.

   

More Counterfeit Words: Knowledge vs. Ideology

  I had a conversation recently with a young man about the topic of climate change.  I was curious to know what his thoughts were.  His response took me by surprise:  instead of explaining what he thought about the subject, he launched into speech that escalated into a broad condemnation of society and people who "refused to believe the obvious."
   I decided to let it go and started to talk about generalities and his college experience, but he continued on by saying, "you are a pretty smart guy.  Why do you not agree with the vast numbers of scientists who have reached the conclusion that man is polluting the world's atmosphere and we all will pay dearly for it?"
   My question, I explained, was really directed toward the thought process that brought you to this conclusion.  I was not challenging your conclusion, but rather I was curious to know how you got there.
   For example, global temperature measurements are controversial by themselves.  There is no automatic correlation between these measurements and any particular cause since sun activity, ocean currents, even tidal forces influence the measurements.  To correlate these measurements to some types of human activity is a mental leap that short-circuits the clear-eyed inquiry into whether one "believes" this conclusion to be warranted by the facts.
   This young man had adopted an ideology put forth by others in lieu of his own investigation.  Predictably, his response to questions about the subject was anger at the questioner, not simply an explanation of what led him to the conclusion.
   It seems that the adoption of an ideological answer to real or imagined questions about science, social justice, status of life, poverty, and a host of other issues, shuts down the thinking process and leads the proponent of the ideology into a defense posture that initially arises from anger toward those who might question the validity of the conclusions.  The unsuspecting and vulnerable student, in this case, had not been taught to parse ideas, but rather was told that these questions had been settled by others more qualified than he, and that anyone who might question the conclusions was just ignorant, and should even be physically attacked or discredited.
   What does all of this mean?
   Many of our prominent (and publicly funded) learning institutions are now openly promoting ideological answers to the great questions of freedom, justice, private property, right to life, role of government, history, and many others.  The inquiry process has been hijacked and replaced with a cookie-cutter set of explanations for every aspect of life.
   I urge you, seekers, to teach your children to "test the spirits" and draw their own conclusions based on their own understanding and not accept the first answer that is thrown at them.
 

Socialism - A Capital Idea

  I have watched the current trend of some calling for Capitalism to be replaced by Socialism.  This is a curious development since they are both the same thing.  "Capital" is a generic term.  It simply refers to an accumulation of resources that is used to create a supply for a perceived need.  These resources take many forms and include money, ideas, land, proprietary technological inventions. Even the energy to develop the supply of the product or service could be called "capital".
   The real issue in this discussion is who should control the capital and the subsequent creation of the product or service:  should the government own this process or should the individuals who came up with the idea own the process?
   As a clear-eyed seeker of wisdom and truth, it seems self evident that the government (which, by definition, produces nothing)  is ill equipped to control the creative process which has resulted in the vast wealth of America.  The primary reason this is true is the risk factor which drives all of wealth creation, is missing from the government's formula.  Success is not a requirement for the government in the enterprise.  History is littered by the failures of government sponsored enterprises.
  In the case of Solyndra,  ( manufacturer of solar energy products), for example, the company was formed and supported by millions of government dollars on the premise that solar energy was needed to replace oil as a major energy source since, as everybody  knows, oil and coal are wreaking havoc on the environment by causing global warming.  While the purpose may well have been noble, the product being made was unreliable, very expensive to produce and not demanded by anybody.
   Any capitalist worth his salt would never have invested his capital in such a venture.  Yet the government went in and wasted millions of dollars and suffered no consequences whatsoever.
   What does all of this mean?
   Competition in a free market breeds opportunity for all of the players.  It spawns creative ideas, forces efficiency, forces cost reductions, improves product reliability and features all of which not only benefit the consumer, but also increase the profitability of the investor.  None of these forces exist in a government-run enterprise!
   A perfect example is found in the "universal health care" idea.
   The argument goes something like this:  All Americans (and probably many non-Americans) should be able to get heath care if they need it .  Good health is a right and not a privilege.
   One must ask, then, how such a system could be configured to provide such a service?  There is unquestionably a demand for health care.  Therefore a careful analysis would have to be made as to what this would look like.
   The private capitalist would try to devise a way that all participants in the health care would pay for the service.  He then would craft a plan which he thinks could be worth the risk.  Notice that the capitalist is not factoring the political element in his calculation since it cannot be assessed.
   The government, on the other hand, would not factor the cost, but only the prospect that people would have that the need would be filled.  The people who were promised "free" services would be encouraged to vote for those politicians promising it.  The end result would be that quality health care would gradually disappear altogether.
   I urge you, seekers, keeping the nation's capital in private hands is the very best way to insure that our goods and services remain in abundance and of highest quality.

Counterfeit Words: Fighting is Competing

  One cannot miss the fact that the world seems to be a very angry place.  Angry groups are marching everywhere demanding that all sorts of things be removed or changed or at least made "legal."  All that is needed to create this anger is the identification of some group that is, in some way, violating the "rights" of some other group.  It doesn't matter that no real injury is taking place at all;  it is enough that the perception of injury is alleged and therefore fighting is called for even including violence against individuals, destruction of property, and even torching of whole communities.
   At the heart of this phenomenon is "community organizing."  The pitch goes something like this:  The "organizer" comes to a neighborhood where social dysfunction and the resulting poverty has destroyed any hope the people might have had.  The "organizer" points to large buildings in another part of the city and tells these people that "those people have taken your money." "You must rise up and demand that they give it back.  If they resist, you must march in the streets and disrupt their lavish lifestyle which they enjoy at your expense." 
   The term "political correctness" is the tool by which these organizers create outrage in unsuspecting and vulnerable groups of people.  For example, the "proper" response to the shooting of a black man by a white policeman is to take to the streets armed with slogans, provided by the organizers, in enraged "protest."   The organizer has successfully caused one group (all black people) to violently confront another group (all policemen).  Marauding gangs of these "protesters" now are justified in smashing and burning buildings, killing police officers, and wreaking havoc wherever they go.  All the while, the true merits of the incident are  not investigated and the violence spreads all around the country via social media.
   The PC police have been very busy.  We now have "white privilege,"  where just the shade of your skin is now offensive to some group of people who have a slightly different shade.  We have "racists" all around our schools, our government, our communities who are supposedly subverting the fortunes of groups of people.  There is a vast conspiracy by some to impose 18th century ideas about God, justice, and private property on poor defenseless people who are forced to live in poverty.  These "racists" discriminate against "immigrants who have come to America for a better life.
   What does all of this mean?
   It is no accident that our children in public schools are not taught to parse ideas about history, philosophical ideas, or social theories.  It is not accidental that our children are not taught mathematics or anything about our nation's founding ideas. Instead they are fed a steady diet of PC ideas about race, the environment, "social justice," and a host of other topics including gender and homosexuality.  In short, our children are taught to be angry.
  Competition, on the other hand, is about a process by which the individual is taught to look inside himself and find ways to make himself stronger, smarter and more able to find rational solutions to the problems he will later face whether it be physical competition or in the arena of ideas.  Learning to successfully compete in virtually any arena translates to all other areas of one life.  Clearly, fighting does not produce any usable results whatever that would make the individual more able to solve the problems of life.
   I beg of you who would be clear-eyed seekers of wisdom and truth.  Teach your children the quiet art of competition and you will be giving them the gift of a lifetime.

 

Freedom From Religion? Please!

   I recently saw a protest launched against a school principle who dared to pray at a school function.  The Freedom From Religion group objected on the basis of a so-called "constitutional" ban on public figures expressing "religious views in any public forum.
   What is the most disingenuous about this is the very idea that any mortal can be "free" from religion.
  The term "religion" is loosely applied by such protesters to any reference to God or any other  "supernatural" being or entity.  The Judeo-Christian view of man and the world starts with the simple statement: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
   The Freedom From Religion idea is based upon an identical statement: "once upon a time millions of years ago, the heavens and the earth appeared from purely "natural forces."  The only difference between these statements is the substitution of "natural forces" for the word "god."
   Neither of these statements can be proved. They are both solidly built on a foundation of faith.  The one has faith in a creator, the other has faith in a unidentified process which brought about every thing that we see including living things, stars, planets, etc.
   Since this undeniably true, why, then, do these people regard their faith to be superior to any other kind of faith?
   The faith in a yet undiscovered process by which everything came to be is, in fact, based on a cultic belief in "science."  Scientism (the religion of science) is based upon two asumptions which briefly stated go something like: "Since , as we all know, there is no God,  something else must have caused the world, universe, life, etc."  The second statement is somewhat like the first:  "Although "science" has not discovered the process by which all of this came to be, I assume that eventually "scientists will discover it."
   Go back now to the protest against this "theist" and try to explain why they think they have a moral superiority upon which to demand him to be silenced.
   We cannot know anything with certainty about man, the world, the universe.  We are compelled to take a leap of faith in order to go on with our lives.
   The choices of what we choose to believe are not superior to one another. 
   Life, however, seems to be very sophisticated technology about which we know very little.  This leads me to lean heavily upon a great engineer in the sky who made it all.

Noah! What Were You Thinking?

   Noah, as we all know, talked to God and God told him to build a giant boat.  He told Noah that it was going to rain (a novel notion at the time) and that everything was going to be swept away except Noah and his family and all of the animals that were brought aboard the ark.
   Consider if Noah were to embark on such a project today..  He would immediately be branded as a wild-eyed crazy man, but probably harmless.  News stories would be written chronicalling the construction of the strange vessel.  "Experts" would be sitting around tables discussing whether or not global warming could in fact produce such a rain.  Other experts would be wondering if there were environmental "concerns" about the project, especially the impact on the cedar tree population.  Protests would be organized to decry the racism and bigotry of not letting anyone other than his family to come aboard the vessel once the rains came.  Environmentalists would be horrified at trying to bring mating pairs of animals into the ark, since food and living conditions would be very limited and certainly not very sanitary.
   The ark gradually took shape and its size was truly remarkable.  Experts questioned whether it would ever float at all.  Since Noah did not have certification to pilot such a ship, government agencies sifted through regulations to see if  he should be ordered to stop building until adequate studies could be made to determine the seaworthiness of the craft.
   Noah's claim that the ark's shape had been given to him from God was met with arrogant smugness since"everyone knows" that the idea of God is quaint fairy tale from long ago that has now been vanquished by "modern " science.
   Then it started raining.
   The rain came in torrents.  Giant subterranean geysers erupted pouring untold millions of water into the oceans and seas.  Thousands of people surrounded the ark, trying to get on board.  Slowly the giant craft was lifted from the cradles in which it was constructed.  It had no engines, no sails, no rudder.  It was afloat and now at the mercies of the winds and currents that swirled around it.
   Another ark of sorts was constructed a couple of hundred years ago following the same instructions Noah had received.
   This ark, however, dwarfed the original ark and become the giant vessel known as The United States of America.  This ark was designed to offer freedom justice and -yes - salvation to a fatally flawed human race.
   Just as in Noah's time, the idea that God could speak so profoundly in history was widely ridiculed. So today those who do not understand the deep faith of our founding fathers do not know how the country was founded or, more importantly, why.
   The shear power and majesty of the United States challenges all of these people try to master it, bring it under their control or even dismantle it.  They think that they can have all of the freedoms and justice and prosperity while denying the existence of the architect who designed it.
   The book of Genesis is required reading for those who would seek to understand what the great creator of the universe has in store for His children  If you think this is a fairy tale, I suggest you sit down and write out your own fairy tale.  It is an eye-opening experience.

Freedom is A Christian Idea

   As I survey the bewildering array of political ideas that float around television, newspapers, social media, overheard conversations, etc. it occurs to me that a point needs to be made to clear the mud out of the water.
   There seems to be a general consensus that "religions" are all basically the same.  That is, everyone worships the same God by whatever name they give him, and, except for some of the finer theological differences, there is a moral equivalency to the whole religious soup.  It follows, then there really is no reason why we can't all "get along."  If we could just get past all of the superfluous wrangling about doctrine, we should be able live peaceably together.
   Muslims need to get over their idea that everything non-muslim must be exterminated;  Christians need to get over the idea that God somehow has conferred upon them a moral superiority;  atheists need to get over there atheism, etc.
   A closer look at all of this prompts one to pause over the idea of "freedom."  If freedom is defined as being able to think and do what you want, to earn and keep the things that you have created, to move freely around in your own environment, to be safe from harm from other people, to associate (or not) with anyone you wish, and generally decide for yourself what you want to believe -  even if the choice sends you to hell, then the fundamental ideas of Christianity are vastly superior to all other theological systems.  Even if you do not believe anything about Christian doctrine, the true seeker of wisdom and truth embraces the basic idea of Christian thought because it provides the most sought-after social environment - true institutionally established freedom.
   What sets Christianity apart from all of the religions of the world is the idea that man is a special creation of God and is endowed with the personal dignity of deciding his own fate.  Without this basic premise, freedom is not possible.
   So the true seeker of wisdom and truth who questions everything, with tongue-in-cheek enthusiastically embraces the idea that God created him and, by God, nobody is going to tell him what to do or believe, nobody is going to take away his money or his land or his country, he is going to say what he wants when he wants to, and if anybody doesn't like it, too damned bad!
    So when the liberal politician rails against the "intolerance" of Christianity and attempts to stamp it out, what he really is doing is laying the axe at the roots of his own freedom and all others in the society.  Totalitarian political systems cannot tolerate this individual freedom because free men will not be bullied and have their lives taken over by a bunch of pinheads.
   What does all of this mean?
   Even if you do not have any faith of any kind in God or creation or moral objectivity, if you are a clear-eyed seeker of wisdom and truth, you must pretend to embrace these ideas and enthusiastically promote them because it is in your own best interest.
   What about it, seekers?  Have you got the guts to act in your own (and everybody else's) best interest, or will you retreat into the vacant world of an ideology that will ultimately  strip you of your dignity and your wealth?